Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Marketing Services

Bloomberg Next marketing services allow clients to elevate their brands and extend their reach through our established and trusted expertise, enhanced with engaging event production, appealing design, and compelling messaging.

Court Affirms Dismissal of Nuisance Claim Against Energy Companies by Alaska Village

Turn to the nation's most objective and informative
daily environmental news resource to learn how the United States and key
players around the world are responding to the environmental...

A federal appeals court ruled Sept. 21 that Alaska's Village of Kivalina may
not sue energy companies under a federal common law claim of public nuisance for
global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions (Native Village of Kivalina
v. ExxonMobil Corp., 9th Cir., No. 09-17490, 9/21/12).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Clean Air
Act and Environmental Protection Agency actions taken under the statute
“displace” a claim by the native village and city of Kivalina for damages caused
by greenhouse gas emissions by energy producers.

The native village--a federally recognized Native Alaskan tribe--and the city
asserted that the greenhouse gas emissions and resulting warming have diminished
sea ice formation on the coastline, exposing the land where the city is situated
to erosion. The village is being forced to relocate due to flooding and erosion
residents allege is the result of climate change.

Kivalina filed the action against the energy producers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The defendants, 22 energy companies, moved to dismiss the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. They include oil companies such as ExxonMobil
Corp., BP Plc, Chevron Corp., and Shell Oil Co., and electricity generators such
as American Electric Power Co. and Duke Energy.

“They argued that Kivalina's allegations raise inherently nonjusticiable
political questions because to adjudicate its claims, the court would have to
determine the point at which greenhouse gas emissions become excessive without
guidance from the political branches,” the appeals court wrote.

The companies also asserted Kivalina lacked Article III standing to raise its
claims because it alleged no facts showing that its injuries are “fairly
traceable” to the actions of the energy companies.

The California district court held that the political question doctrine
precluded judicial consideration of Kivalina's federal public nuisance claim
(198 DEN A-5, 10/16/09).

Executive or Legislative Branch Attention

Issues raised by Kivalina “were matters more appropriately left for
determination by the executive or legislative branch in the first instance,” the
appeals court said.

Additionally, the district court held that Kivalina lacked Article III
standing to bring a public nuisance suit because Kivalina could not show a
“substantial likelihood” the defendants' conduct was causing the plaintiffs'
injury. Further, plaintiffs could not show that the “seed” of its injury could
be traced to any of the energy producers.

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state
law claims.

The federal appeals court invoked the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in
American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 72 ERC 1609
(2011), which asked whether such a theory is viable under federal common law
and, if so, whether any legislative action has displaced it.

In that opinion, the Supreme Court held that similar claims made by states
were displaced by the Clean Air Act (119 DEN A-5, 6/21/11).

James R. May, a law professor at Widener University in Wilmington, Del., told
BNA in a Sept. 21 email the decision is “an unfortunate continued curtailment of
common law remedies that have existed for hundreds of years. The plaintiffs
deserved their day in court.”

Ninth Circuit follows Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit followed the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the 2011
case.

“In sum, the Supreme Court has held that federal common law addressing
domestic greenhouse gas emissions has been displaced by Congressional action,”
the appeals court wrote.

“That determination displaces federal common law public nuisance actions
seeking damages, as well as those actions seeking injunctive relief,” the court
said.

The appeals court affirmed the dismissal by the district court.

“Our conclusion obviously does not aid Kivalina, which itself is being
displaced by the rising sea,” the appeals court concluded. “But the solution to
Kivalina's dire circumstance must rest in the hands of the legislative and
executive branches of our government, not the federal common law.”

The opinion was authored by Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas and joined by
Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton. District Judge Philip M. Pro of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada sat on the case by designation. Pro
concurred with the majority opinion.

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)